Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Android (Score 1) 383

"In terms of past copyright law, a derivative work is a modified version of a previous work, and I don't see any way that a completely separate program such as a driver is a "modification" of the kernel just because the kernel loads it."

Stupid remark. Why do you think the LGPL had to be created for libraries while the software "just interfaces with those libraries"? The reach of a modified work under US copyright law goes very far, and would certainly include kernel modules (if they are written from scratch or not). There isn't even a stable kernel api inside kernelspace for device drivers (and good so).

Comment Re:Android (Score 1) 383

You fail to see the importance of the kernel and its license, with such a remark. Android is indeed the Linux kernel combined with mostly GPL and Apache Licensed code, also a little bit of proprietary licensed software is in the mix.
Android can only use hardware thanks to Linux support. And for certain device drivers, such as the GPU support on most most android smartphones (but also other device drivers sometimes), this is implemented with proprietary licensed binary drivers.
This means it isn't very easy to port Cyanogenmod or other Android Open Source Project based versions of Android to all smartphones.
Added to that, these proprietary drivers are in a shady legal zone: the GPL states that all 'derived works' have to be GPL too. Under US law, it's a no-brainer that they are derived works from the Linux kernel and thus should be GPL too. Linus however, chooses (up till now) not to enforce that. He's perfectly happy that other people are doing the effort to make Linux work on other hardware, with proprietary drivers or not.
My question is if it isn't time to change that opinion. Because it would benefit everybody involved: community, users, hw device makers, smartphone integrators, ecology and Google.
Community: more opensource software for everybody to benefit from
Users: can upgrade their old smartphones and get rid of bloatware
hw device makers: can focus on selling their hw and supporting the community contributed drivers with less effort
smartphone integrators: don't have to worry about supporting old hw and the associated security risks and liabilities
ecology: old smartphones will be less soon discarded when they can run the latest linux/android builds
Google: has to worry less about version fragmentation, security problems of old android releases and smartphone vendors no longer supporting their users


So it's really a win/win situation for everybody in which Linus has the power to change the world for the better with a simple email :-D

Comment Android (Score 1) 383

Linux has now become the most popular operating system in the world through Android. Yet the fact that binary drivers are somehow allowed, makes it impossible for users to upgrade their systems and create cyanogenmod-like alternatives. Is it not time to change the stance with respect to binary drivers, or to give a timeframe to device makers for how much longer this will be allowed? Nvidia is moving slowly into the right direction now, but in the ARM arch, it remains a mess. HW manufacturers aren't interested in the IP on their device drivers, nor are smartphone vendors interested in maintaining and providing software updates. Can't this be a win-win opportunity for everybody involved, and shouldn't it start with some kind of timeframe like: 'Linux will no longer allow binary drivers from mid 2016'?

Comment Weather is more tough than expected... (Score 1) 162

Wind is a bigger problem than most people think. Just think back about how people looked at air travel 100 years ago, and yet again a large part of the public sticks with the same oldfashioned outdated views. It will never happen. Add to that fact that the 3D low air space can not at all be compared with traffic congestion as we know it... 'filled with drones'? Get real!

Comment Isn't Google's fault, or is it? (Score 2) 579

Many remarks say that Google isn't to blame as they provide bug-free versions of Android as well.
HW vendors are indeed not interested to provide upgrades for hw they no longer sell.

While that is true, it was Google's choice to allow binary device drivers for Android interaction by the vendors.
It are these proprietary device drivers which are preventing initiatives such as Cyanogenmod and others to provide a clear upgrade path.
It illustrates the big mistake Google makes in this regard (allowing binary drivers and focusing on Apache licenses).
The position of Google is strong enough to make a stance in the interest of the users (and the world) that all Android drivers should be OpenSourced... in that way the users can 'bake their own' and get their own responsability with respect to upgrades.
The current situation brings the responsibility upon unwilling HW vendors, unwilling providers and ultimately Google.

Sooner or later this is going to blow up into the face of Google because bigger security problems will one day be found!
It's time Google takes a stance for OpenSource software in the interest of the users and the larger common good (certainly now it's completely on par with their own interests)!

Comment Re:This was bound to happen. (Score 3, Interesting) 112

Somewhat maybe. In any case many people just want to experience flying. It is great fun to fly. And testing new planes is a special kind of fun at that. So I'm sure he had fun. And I'm sure he outweighed the fun versus the risk. I'm a frequent paraglider pilot, and even this close to earth lethal accidents do happen.
I for one accept my risks and live to have fun :)

Comment Fishy Google Ideas (Score 4, Insightful) 289

While I do think the article is too long, I think some of the actions of Google are to be expected. Microsoft is also lobbying massively in Washington, and Google has to put some counterweight on that - one could think.
But what Assange lists about Google Ideas is disturbing.
And when I look at the Google Ideas website, it seems to be a very valid point. And even more disturbing.

Yet I do believe he thinks the CEO of Google has more power than he has in reality. And I might be naive. But, seriously, they should look better into what Jared Cohen is doing with the money of Google, there certainly is something fishy about this guy, his connection and interpretation of 'do no evil', thanks to Assange for pointing that out!

Comment Re:It's not that difficult (Score 1) 202

I think its a completely different thing. In stonehenge, there was no mega-river which flooded the entire area. While making things difficult in some way, the flooding allowed the Egyptians to move heavy stuff easily because of the Archimedes principle.
They had boats and knew everything about locks and irrigation.
Stonehenge? I think that's a different matter.

Comment Stupid theory... (Score 5, Interesting) 202

They where moved by irrigation.
the flats around the pyramids are perfectly flat. And where flooded with water when the Nile was at a yearly peak.
The water was trapped inside. The fence to keep the water inside is still standing
A corridor in the middle towards the pyramid was build and had dams to move the ships upward
The signs of the dam plates are still there in the corridors
The pyramid itself was a water basin, with the outside walls keeping the water inside
That's why they are all perfectly level
The ships moved the bricks in and lowered them to fill the pyramid. as a result the water rises.
However, water evaporates, and the movement of the ships upwards needs a water displacement at least equal to the mass moved up
So the ancient egyptians left clues everywhere to explain how they did it: everywhere, in the tombs in the pyramids, and even in New Kingdom in the Valley of the Kings, they drew how they accomplished it: by carrying buckets of water on their head.
That's how they build the pyramids; by putting water in the top of the pyramid, till all the ships with the stones where there.
Now, was that so hard to figure out? Stupid archeologists!

Comment Re:GPLv4 - the good public license? (Score 1) 140

They could.

But the weapon manufacturers would have to look elsewhere for their software.

And the implications for such a law would go much further than OpenSource software.

It would be valid for any commercially developed software too.

I would be very surprised if the US government would pass a law to contradict the software industry to such an extend!

Comment Re:GPLv4 - the good public license? (Score 1) 140

Would you agree with such a law?
How are they going to define a 'OSS' license?
Don't you think we will find a way around that to create another license not fitting that description and rendering that executive order useless.
No president would issue an executive order if it also hurts the software industry in the same way.

But I guess it's a valid point and something to be taken into consideration when drafting such a GPLv4.
Also don't forget that the GPLv4 goes a lot further than only the US...

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly

Working...